"We're going to look at every place that a reader or a listener or a viewer or a user has been locked out, has been served up passive or a fixed or a canned experience, and ask ourselves, "If we carve out a little bit of the cognitive surplus and deploy it here, could we make a good thing happen?" And I'm betting the answer is yes." Clay Shirky at a Web 2.0 conference, April 23, 2008.

Open to all in line with resources. If resources are used, for example to publicise a process, they should not be used in ways which unfairly discriminate against any stakeholders, including ordinary citizens or community groups, or in ways which favour only a few. [1]

Open involvement recognises that citizens interests are not one-dimensional in respect of

place - citizens belong to a variety of different communities, for example via residence, and other purposes such as work and leisure

time - citizens may become active in response to a particular threat to their communities, but it is clear some issues are long term and are helped by the opportunity for continuous dialogue. For example climate change is an issue which is not going to go away.

topic - citizens are increasingly aware of interdependence. Enlightened government programmes such as Local Agenda 21 stimulate such awareness. In government rhetoric: "Joined up problems need joined up solutions"

context - citizens are increasingly aware of context. Restricting involvement in wider or so-called strategic issues looks undemocratic. Through a variety of roles, citizens, especially when the wisdom of crowds is realised, can see issues from a variety of perspectives and approach consensus even on more contentious issues.

Active citizenry, especially when the wisdom of crowds is realised, will not be content to be treated as an inferior partner in respect of information and skills.

To be transparently valued all substantive points must either have some sort of permanence within a co-created document or a reply which evidences their influence or it is transparent why the points have not been influential. What constitutes a substantive point is a matter for consensus.

As a matter of course all involvement via electronic recording is permanently open, valued and so properly and helpfully organised. Involvement via electronic recording is encouraged and supported as the norm rather than the exception. Atribution may tend to be open, but anonymous involvement is not precluded.

Rather than measures of success being foisted upon the community, or worse still simply being ignored, open invovlement gives a primary role to the community in judging how successful a project or programme has been.

Open involvement will tend create opportunities for ongoing relationships. Some situations, for example involvement between civil society and government about climate change, are likely to be best if there is sufficient openness for continuous dialogue

Citizen to citizen communication is the norm rather than the exception

Transparency, comprehensiveness and permanance of the electronic record encourages responsibilty over contributions, for example enabling the wisdom of crowds to counteract control freakery from wherever it might come

where meetings or gatherings are invovled and there are calls for an agenda, the agenda specifically is open to be influenced by all